Response to Jacob's Blog #17

Columns written by any political analyst will have a bias toward conservatism or liberalism. As we all know, in the case of Bill O'Reilly that tends to be a more conservative-based opinion. FOX has done an amazing job of marketing O'Reilly as a journalist, though I believe that most people can see him for what he really is - an editorialist. I would place his work in the opinion section of any media outlet.

Bias in an article

I have chosen to use the article US Urges China to Use Restraint in Tibet as an example of bias in reporting. With a story such as this, bias is inherently written in to the story. This is due to China's press policies. As the reporter cannot present both sides of the issue to the public, the article is one-sided although it appears the Dali Lama is willing to accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet as long as the Tibetan people are allowed to remain autonomous - much like Puerto Rico's relationship with the USA.

Response to Justin's Chapters 12, 13

Visual repetition in any type of communication one is putting together is highly important. As the webmaster for my campus I have made it a point to keep a consistent format on each of the pages so that people can come to identify the site from any of the pages as part of the lhcfishers.com domain. Another place I take care to keep a consistent style is in video editing. As an audio/visual communication I strive to keep as consistent a style as possible as I am still learning the capabilities of Final Cut and settling on a camera technique that tells that this video is "mine."

Chapters 12, 13

Chapters 12 and 13 both focus on the visual aspects of writing reports from graphics implementation and design to the layout of the document itself. The goal is to create a document that draws people in and clearly shows the information you're presenting. I have often received emails where the authors forget about paragraphs or don't add an extra line in between their paragraphs. Each time I receive one of these I don't read through the message. I might scan it, but I won't take the time to sift through the entire message. It just look too daunting.

In writing scientific papers I have been required to use sans-serif fonts and for these papers all figures that are referenced must be near the reference point in the paper while tables are set in an 'appendix' of sorts in the back. Like chapter 12 states, presenting the figures (graphs) is not enough, an explanation of what the data indicates is highly important. Although there are guidelines for the ethical use of color and scale in figures, I've found many times that special interest groups will deliberately manipulate the color and/or scale as well as the interpretation of the data to mislead the readers.

Response to Ganlai "Web 2.0"

Although Ganlai isn't a "Web 2.0" supporter, I like the direction he takes when dealing with the original article. Big Media was "losing" to these new, user-generated media outlets and it can be argued that they still are. But I believe that Big Media is beginning to take advantage of the Web 2.0 culture. How many sports writers now have dedicated blogs following a favorite team in the NFL, NBA or MLB? These writers track every move the front offices make and analyze how that will help or hinder their teams. One of the newer outlets I found is ustream.tv. It offers free streaming web video service as long as you've got a camera you can run directly through a computer and have internet access. Videos saved onto their server that get the most plays and air time are from affiliates of major news outlets. Because Big Media is expanding into the web 2.0 culture it has become "just a thing" as Ganlai puts it.

Web 2.0, Digby

It seems the author of the Web 2.0 article has a very negative view of the pervasiveness of the web in our lives. He takes the stance that it's just too easy to publish ourselves online and that as a culture we are becoming more and more self-focused as we can see what we have written, filmed and posted online. There is a basis for his argument that this waters down our culture by taking away from "the best." "The best" are the recording artists, best selling authors, and the movie industry. I believe that we can argue the other side as well. The Web 2.0 culture allows people who are creative equals or superiors with "the best" to express themselves and increase their chances of being discovered. Who among us wouldn't take the opportunity to become a best-selling author, top 40 artist, or direct the next blockbuster? Although there may be an over-abundance of material on the web, I believe that this can motivate people to strive to be even better so that they stand above the crowd.